[Kragg-O]

I'm in the market for a new TV. I'd like to be in the 50" - 60" range. The budget is under $1000. It will be used for movies and gaming.


I've seen 4k offerings in that range, like the Samsung UN50HU6840, but they appear to be 60Hz, so I worry about motion blur.


I really don't care about the smart features - no use for yet another web browsing device. It will be connected to an Xbox 360; all the apps I need are on the xbox.


Do you guys think the budget 4k displays are worth-while? Or would I be better off spending less on a 1080p set with at least 120Hz native refresh rate?

 

[ray0414]

50" samsung ju7100 is 1500, thats a solid tv. but if budget is really your concern, ive heard alot of good things about the Vizio P series and its definitely a more budget friendly tv. the 55" is 1200. the 50" is 1000.

 

[Jetmeck]

Dont value 4k over refresh rate. I have looked multiple times at side by side differences tween 4k and 1080P sets and unless you are on top of them there is no PQ difference. Every article I have read says you need to be a minimum 80" to see a difference and sit very close.

I was looking at 65-80 inchers recently and couldnt tell a difference until about 1-2 FEET.

No kidding, dont buy into the hype. Real 4k content will be limited for years to come because
cable and sat providers just did an overhaul to get to 1080. They arent spending the money to do
4k any time soon. The internet is no answer either for most of us unless you want to wait hours to download a 4k movie.

Motion blur is an issue especially for sports to me. LCDs came to the head of the class just like MP3 players cause they are small and convenient not because they are the best Picture quality or sound quality. They have inherent flaws that have never been addressed due to their design.

Dont pay a dime extra or compromise for a lesser tv to get 4k.

 

[TheOneTrueMonty]

I'm in the market for a new TV. I'd like to be in the 50" - 60" range. The budget is under $1000. It will be used for movies and gaming.


I've seen 4k offerings in that range, like the Samsung UN50HU6840, but they appear to be 60Hz, so I worry about motion blur.


I really don't care about the smart features - no use for yet another web browsing device. It will be connected to an Xbox 360; all the apps I need are on the xbox.


Do you guys think the budget 4k displays are worth-while? Or would I be better off spending less on a 1080p set with at least 120Hz native refresh rate?

I think the Vizio P series and higher end 1080Ps under $1000 are great and you really can't go wrong with either. If size is not a limitation, bigger is always better especially considering that movies may be smaller, leaving some wasted space on the top and bottom. I too was considering this dilemma and eventually went with the Sony 55" w700b. Here's the factor that led to my decision.

1. I didn't care for smart features because my tv is connected to my computer via HDMI cable. Sony's smart features only satisfactory.

2. 4k brings about a price premium but not necessarily a better image because contrast ratios, viewing angles and motion blur which is more important are comparable for the top models in your price range. It was the choice between a smaller 4k tv or a bigger 1080p tv at a certain price and I went for bigger.

3. The aesthetics of the TV mattered for me because when it's not on, it's a big piece of furniture in my small living room and I found the Vizio M and P series and Samsung U6840 series to be less aesthetically pleasing.

4. If gaming is a priority then you should check for reviews of the input lag and ghosting of whatever screen you are interested in. Sony tvs have an impulse mode setting that drastically cuts down ghosting at the cost of brightness.

Because of these factors, I ruled out 4K TVs and the HDTVs on my list for consideration were:

Samsung 7150 series
Sony w800b/w850b/w700b
Samsung 6350
Vizio M series
Vizio E series

I went with the Sony w700b because it had the best image quality, build quality and biggest size at the right price of $720. $799.99 sale at Best Buy /w 10% movers coupon.

 

[ray0414]

Dont value 4k over refresh rate. I have looked multiple times at side by side differences tween 4k and 1080P sets and unless you are on top of them there is no PQ difference. Every article I have read says you need to be a minimum 80" to see a difference and sit very close.

I was looking at 65-80 inchers recently and couldnt tell a difference until about 1-2 FEET.

No kidding, dont buy into the hype. Real 4k content will be limited for years to come because
cable and sat providers just did an overhaul to get to 1080. They arent spending the money to do
4k any time soon. The internet is no answer either for most of us unless you want to wait hours to download a 4k movie.

Motion blur is an issue especially for sports to me. LCDs came to the head of the class just like MP3 players cause they are small and convenient not because they are the best Picture quality or sound quality. They have inherent flaws that have never been addressed due to their design.

Dont pay a dime extra or compromise for a lesser tv to get 4k.

this is not true and i will tell you why. the tv companies are no longer putting their best technology into 1080p tvs. you want the best tv? your going to have to get a 4k tv because all the best processing is now in the 4k tvs. samsung only 2 1080P tvs for 2015 and they are LOW END. low motion, low processing, low everything. i believe sony is going the same route as well. and your also wrong about the cable and satillite, directv will have 4k channels by THIS SUMMER. ive already talked to a friend who works for them and have had their big meetings. their gonna be starting out with premium channels and then working their way down. 2015 4k tvs have been much improved over 2014 models, out with the old and in with new. anyone who sees my tv cant believe how awesome the picture looks. 1080p=screen door effect 4k=cleaner picture with no visible pixels

 

[*UFO*]

this is not true and i will tell you why. the tv companies are no longer putting their best technology into 1080p tvs. you want the best tv? your going to have to get a 4k tv because all the best processing is now in the 4k tvs. samsung only 2 1080P tvs for 2015 and they are LOW END. low motion, low processing, low everything. i believe sony is going the same route as well. and your also wrong about the cable and satillite, directv will have 4k channels by THIS SUMMER. ive already talked to a friend who works for them and have had their big meetings. their gonna be starting out with premium channels and then working their way down. 2015 4k tvs have been much improved over 2014 models, out with the old and in with new. anyone who sees my tv cant believe how awesome the picture looks. 1080p=screen door effect 4k=cleaner picture with no visible pixels

Your post isn't further from the truth. No, the 2015 4k televisions are not "much improved" over the 2014 LCD tv's, or the 2013 LCD tv's, or the 2012 LCD tv's, you get the idea. For Samsung, yes, they seemed to have finally improved their motion handling to "acceptable" levels after YEARS of horrible hiccups and skips and artifacts. Even so, they still have not caught up to Sony's motion handling of sets that are 3 years old. I would take a w700b (w800b minus 3d) over a Samsung 4k television. As far as overall picture quality, no, nothing has improved. LCD is LCD is LCD. They are all the same. Low contrast, poor viewing angles (except IPS, but that has even worse contrast), poor native motion handling, etc. Yes you can pay $6k for QD's (which Sony used in their 2013 sets btw), but almost every other set can calibrate to the rec 709 standard and display the correct colors without QD's. The only time QD's become relevant is when you want to display over saturated colors, or you want to display a source that has a higher native color gamut. So for a budget of $1000, the w700b (or w800b) can't be touched.

 

[sean10780]

50" samsung ju7100 is 1500, thats a solid tv. but if budget is really your concern, ive heard alot of good things about the Vizio P series and its definitely a more budget friendly tv. the 55" is 1200. the 50" is 1000.

is the 50 ju7100 out yet? This is the size i'm looking for, but only see it via preorder on samsung.

 

[turnne1]

I'm in the market for a new TV. I'd like to be in the 50" - 60" range. The budget is under $1000. It will be used for movies and gaming.


I've seen 4k offerings in that range, like the Samsung UN50HU6840, but they appear to be 60Hz, so I worry about motion blur.


I really don't care about the smart features - no use for yet another web browsing device. It will be connected to an Xbox 360; all the apps I need are on the xbox.


Do you guys think the budget 4k displays are worth-while? Or would I be better off spending less on a 1080p set with at least 120Hz native refresh rate?

I think you can get the Vizio P series right now in a 55" on sale at Best Buy for $899...with free delivery

if you can stretch your budget a bit...you might check out the Samsung 60H7150...its like $1199-1299 at PC Richards( delivered)

Warren

 

[ray0414]

is the 50 ju7100 out yet? This is the size i'm looking for, but only see it via preorder on samsung.

Some stores do have it now. The feedback from owners has been VERY positive. Many people say it's better than samsungs 2nd best tv last year (the 8550) from 1st hand experience with both. Don't listen to the haters.

 

[sean10780]

Some stores do have it now. The feedback from owners has been VERY positive. Many people say it's better than samsungs 2nd best tv last year (the 8550) from 1st hand experience with both. Don't listen to the haters.

Great, thanks

 

[Kragg-O]

I went to Best Buy today and had a look at the W700B and the Vizio E's and M's. I was most impressed with the Sony. They have the 50" for $699 right now. The 55" W800B (same model with 3D) is available on Amazon for $782.


This is for a room in the basement that we're finishing. Tomorrow we'll pay the drywall guy and decide on carpet. At that point, we should have a really good handle on the overall budget, so I should be able to make some A/V decisions! I'm starting to get excited about putting all this together...

 

[Kragg-O]

So, by the time we finished everything else on Sat, it was too late to get to the post office for a BB movers coupon, and the BB sale ended that night. Fortunately the basement is under budget, so I ordered the 55" W800B!

Thanks very much for the info, suggestions and experiences. This is the first TV I've bought since our 27" Panasonic "flat" CRT, so I'm pretty excited. I should have it around the end of the week, and then I need to figure out the basics of calibration...

 

[*UFO*]

So, by the time we finished everything else on Sat, it was too late to get to the post office for a BB movers coupon, and the BB sale ended that night. Fortunately the basement is under budget, so I ordered the 55" W800B!

Thanks very much for the info, suggestions and experiences. This is the first TV I've bought since our 27" Panasonic "flat" CRT, so I'm pretty excited. I should have it around the end of the week, and then I need to figure out the basics of calibration...

Congrats. The w800b is accurate for the most part out of the box in Cinema mode, with a slight green push (not really noticeable), and a little undersaturated red (can't really be fixed). I think your going to be very happy with it.

 

[mpgxsvcd]

Dont value 4k over refresh rate. I have looked multiple times at side by side differences tween 4k and 1080P sets and unless you are on top of them there is no PQ difference. Every article I have read says you need to be a minimum 80" to see a difference and sit very close.

I was looking at 65-80 inchers recently and couldnt tell a difference until about 1-2 FEET.

No kidding, dont buy into the hype. Real 4k content will be limited for years to come because
cable and sat providers just did an overhaul to get to 1080. They arent spending the money to do
4k any time soon. The internet is no answer either for most of us unless you want to wait hours to download a 4k movie.

Motion blur is an issue especially for sports to me. LCDs came to the head of the class just like MP3 players cause they are small and convenient not because they are the best Picture quality or sound quality. They have inherent flaws that have never been addressed due to their design.

Dont pay a dime extra or compromise for a lesser tv to get 4k.

Just the as there isn't much 4K content. There isn't any content at greater than 60 FPS either. The refresh rate of the TV is meaningless if the content is only 60 FPS or less.

 

[howardstern]

Dont value 4k over refresh rate. I have looked multiple times at side by side differences tween 4k and 1080P sets and unless you are on top of them there is no PQ difference. Every article I have read says you need to be a minimum 80" to see a difference and sit very close.

I was looking at 65-80 inchers recently and couldnt tell a difference until about 1-2 FEET.

No kidding, dont buy into the hype. Real 4k content will be limited for years to come because
cable and sat providers just did an overhaul to get to 1080. They arent spending the money to do
4k any time soon. The internet is no answer either for most of us unless you want to wait hours to download a 4k movie.

Motion blur is an issue especially for sports to me. LCDs came to the head of the class just like MP3 players cause they are small and convenient not because they are the best Picture quality or sound quality. They have inherent flaws that have never been addressed due to their design.

Dont pay a dime extra or compromise for a lesser tv to get 4k.

You can't be serious. There is no comparison between a HU9000 or 8550 displaying native 4k and a W850B or any other 1080p LCD I have owned. The depth, clarity, detail, "pop" and vibrancy is stunning. With Moving Art, "Deserts" the 9000 held it's own with a Samsung H5000 Plasma in a side by side and surpassed it in certain areas. As with other various content as well, but that's plasma, an inferior LCD doesn't compete. I'll give you the motion issues and all that but the local dimming provides much better blacks and the uniformity was perfect.

What images can a W850B produce that look even remotely similar to the amazing clarity of the 4k cityscape demos on the Samsung? A good 4k source captures the superiority of these TV's. Upscaled content will not show off the potential. There is marginal difference with a 4k TV and a 1080 playing satellite or Blu-Ray but that is where the similarity stops. I have a Vizio P right now that has darker blacks than any plasma I have owned and reviews substantiate this. It was darker than even the F8500 in scenes from "Gravity" and "Harry Potter." I had an M 65" that does not belong in the same category with the P. Take a look at a 950B playing 4k and then look at a W700B. I was a 4k skeptic myself but I have become a believer after owning and comparing 8 TV's in the last 9 months alone. An "LCD is not an LCD is not an LCD." The processors, contrast, uniformity, black-levels, up-scalers etc. are much improved in the higher end 4k sets. I know this was originally about "budget" TV's but you went a step further to claim they are all the same and 4k is a waste. That is misinformation. I simply have never seen image quality from a 1080 LCD anywhere close to a high-end 4k displaying a good source and you don't need to be 6 inches from a 100" screen to see it.